
‘I think it's here': Uprooted Afghan family settles in Chicago after being rescued ahead of refugee program suspension
The route to Kilmer Elementary School is about a mile and a half each way for Hamid Azizi, who heads out every afternoon to walk his daughters home. What would seem like a mundane activity for most is a joyous occasion for the father of seven, who arrived in Chicago a little more than a month ago.
The 30-minute walk has been Azizi's easiest journey in many years.
At the start of the summer of 2021, his family fled its village in Afghanistan, moving quickly and often to evade the Taliban, which swiftly took control after United States armed forces began withdrawing from the region following a 20-year war.
'We were very, very worried about our situation,' Azizi, who speaks Dari, told the Tribune through a translator on a recent Tuesday afternoon at his apartment in the North Side neighborhood of West Ridge. 'Once the Americans left, we could not live in our own city where we grew up or in the other cities that I went to (with U.S. troops) because if anybody knew me and saw me, just to get some credit, they would tell the Taliban, 'This man worked with Americans.' I had to keep moving.'
Azizi, 41, is one of thousands of Afghans who were waiting to resettle in the U.S. after being promised safety and relocation for serving alongside American troops as a member of the National Mine Removal Group, or NMRG. He assisted U.S. special forces in various zones in Afghanistan from 2017 until 2021, and received a Special Immigrant Visa, or SIV, intended to facilitate the resettlement of individuals who have risked their lives by collaborating with the U.S. government.
Despite the stamp cemented in his passport for years, Azizi and his family had to find help on their own, and be rescued by organizations such as No One Left Behind after President Donald Trump's inauguration added a sense of urgency.
Days after taking office, Trump signed an executive order that suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, pausing foreign aid and ending operations of U.N. organizations such as the International Organization for Migration that were vital for processing refugees. The administration also suspended government programs that buy flights for refugees who have SIVs.
'We found ourselves in this interesting situation where you had Special Immigrant Visa holders who were still being processed, but there were no flights for them to travel on because they basically had to buy their own flights,' said Andrew Sullivan, executive director of No One Left Behind, a nonprofit focused on evacuating Afghan and Iraqi SIV applicants to safety. 'For many of these folks, they left their lives behind in Afghanistan. Many of them have been sitting on a State Department processing platform in either Albania or Qatar. It's not like they can work there. They really just don't have the finances to buy flights.'
Sullivan said the executive order thwarted thousands of families' prospects for resettlement, a process that often takes years. And many of those families, like Azizi's, have been on the run.
Within a month of U.S. troops leaving, Azizi had to flee from Parwan, his home province where the U.S. military had a significant presence.
His wife and six daughters —his son, the youngest of seven children, wasn't yet born — kept a few essential items and hid in homes of various relatives in nearby provinces and villages, staying mere weeks or days at a time.
'(The relative whose home we were staying in) would say 'don't leave, because (the Taliban) are all over the village. Don't go out, because they're going to get you. You're safe in the house until they find you,'' Azizi recalled. 'But after that, (the relative) said we couldn't stay anymore because it was dangerous for them, and then in two, three days, we went to another relative's house, which was by the river.'
With the Taliban rapidly taking over rural areas, Azizi said his family went to the bordering city of Kabul, the country's capital, 'because it had not fallen yet.' Azizi's wife, Fahima, knew a family in Kabul who took them in for a couple months.
But on Aug. 15, 2021, the Taliban seized control of Kabul, signaling a full recapture of Afghanistan. Civilians soon swarmed Kabul's main international airport hoping to evacuate.
Azizi said his family attempted to get on a plane out of Kabul.
'We were one of the people that went to the airport. They were flying everywhere and there were barriers and everything. But my younger daughter, Zhra, stayed behind. I couldn't take it that my daughter won't have a family, won't have a father, a mother. I can't just go and leave her behind,' Azizi said. 'We all went back from the airport. We got her, and from there we stayed but at that time we knew the Taliban said, 'We have forgiven everybody, blanket forgiveness — but not for people who worked for the Americans.''
Will Reno, a professor at Northwestern University, said the images out of Kabul's airport were a stark representation of America's frantic departure from a country it occupied for 20 years.
'That first day or two was chaos when there were people on the airfield grabbing onto the landing gear of the aircraft — that got that very bad, politically, pictures like that,' said Reno, who was a contractor for the Department of Defense while the U.S. was involved in Afghanistan.
Reno said in the days following the U.S. withdrawal and the Taliban takeover, there was a rush to get high-priority groups such as military intelligence and Afghan special forces that trained American soldiers onto evacuation aircrafts. He explained that President Joe Biden's administration was late in getting a system in place that would effectively vet and process all SIV holders and their families, leaving many, like Azizi, to flee, as the situation with the Taliban became increasingly dangerous for them.
Despite the desperate circumstances, Azizi shared fond memories of working with U.S. troops.
'Those times were our best memories; they were like our brothers,' Azizi said. 'We will eat together, either on the floor, or if we find a table, we'll all sit together. If, God forbid, one of us got injured or something like that, we all would get together, be around him like a family. So the relationship was very nice, very beautiful and brotherly.'
As a member of the National Mine Removal Group, Azizi's team was the first line of defense for American soldiers, clearing hazardous devices off a battlefield and seeking out snipers trying to target U.S. troops. Azizi said there were several teams of NMRG personnel stationed across the war zone. One of his friends was a guard with the NMRG and immigrated to the U.S. on an SIV years before the war ended, when the U.S. still had an embassy in Afghanistan.
In Kabul, Azizi's family continued moving around, hiding in homes of friends and acquaintances. This went on for several months, Azizi said.
The family finally found a reason for optimism after connecting with the 1208 Foundation, a nonprofit providing immigration assistance to the surviving members of the NMRG. The organization helped the Azizi family cross into the last leg of its tireless run and eventually paved the way for No One Left Behind to link up with Azizi's family.
Eventually, Azizi's family left Kabul for Islamabad, Pakistan, where they lived for 11 months. Through a website launched by No One Left Behind, Azizi was able to fill out an online form to share his visa status and resettlement plans.
They didn't have much in terms of money or food, 'but plenty of hope,' Azizi said.
Life on the run was especially hard on Fahima, who gave birth to her son, Mohamad, at home without medical care, all while caring for her six other children.
In January, No One Left Behind helped Azizi and his family fly to Doha, Qatar, where the organization had sent many Afghans and Iraqis who have already immigrated to the U.S., many through the SIV program, to help facilitate the process.
The endgame was America, but Azizi said he knew the 'situation with Trump' was not ideal for refugees seeking asylum.
Anticipating even more upcoming limitations for Afghans, and the looming threat of the Trump administration introducing a travel ban that could restrict their entry, No One Left Behind urgently started tapping into existing infrastructure and raised money to buy flights for families and individuals in places such as Albania and Qatar.
Between Feb. 1 and March 17, the group said it successfully booked flights for 659 Afghans.
And since they began this 'all-out sprint,' Sullivan said, No One Left Behind has spent $1.5 million on 1,300 flights for stranded Afghans with a U.S. visa.
'Life is not easy for people who just come from one place to another place, especially for kids,' Azizi said, looking around his new home. 'We were very, very happy when they told us, especially when we're leaving the (hotel) room and there was a bus to take us to the airport. It was a different feeling … we are really going right now.'
After 50 days in Doha, Azizi's family got on a flight to Chicago. No One Left Behind covered the cost of their one-way flights from Doha International Airport to O'Hare International Airport.
'When they told us we are going to take you all, buy tickets for all of you, and you don't have to pay it back — wow, (we asked) how is that going to be possible?' Azizi said. 'We couldn't believe it.'
In West Ridge, a volunteer from No One Left Behind comes by weekly to help the family with chores or tasks that require an English speaker. She carries around an English/Dari phrasebook and flips through it regularly, but uses the Google Translate app for faster communication.
She helped set up Azizi's three-bedroom apartment off Devon Avenue, furnished with just enough: two comfortable couches, a dining table with six chairs, a bookshelf fashioned into a shoe rack stacked with tiny sandals and sneakers. There isn't a TV, so Azizi's cellphone is typically where his youngest children, Mohamad and Hfsah, watch cartoons on YouTube.
Azizi laughed that his phone is not his anymore.
Although No One Left Behind offers resettlement assistance to several of the refugees it helps, Sullivan said the group prefers sending its families and individuals to cities in America where they know someone — even just a friend. If there isn't any contact person, the group will send Afghans to areas with a higher volume of Afghan refugees, such as Sacramento, San Francisco or the greater Washington, D.C., area, so there's a sense of community and shared language.
In Azizi's case, he got in touch with his friend from the NMRG who resettled in Chicago while the U.S. was still in Afghanistan. The friend invited the family to stay at his home for a couple weeks, then borrowed $3,000 to give to Azizi to secure a month's rent for their apartment.
The No One Left Behind volunteer set up a GoFundMe for Azizi's family to help raise money that could go toward rent and basic necessities.
The situation for Afghans has become more fragile in some of the places where many have temporarily sheltered, like Azizi's family did in Pakistan. Having hosted millions of refugees, Pakistan has recently increased deportations. And an agreement that made Albania a way station for Afghans expired in March, Sullivan said.
Sullivan said for individuals like Azizi who have SIV status, going back to Afghanistan was not an option.
'If they got deported, they would, by definition, go back to a Taliban-controlled immigration checkpoint and fly back into Kabul, where they would be greeted by Taliban immigration authorities who would see their passport and see a U.S. visa in it,' he said. 'We very much worry that it would very much open them up to questioning at the very least, and at the worst, detention, torture and possibly murder from the Taliban.'
During the final months of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, an American documentary film crew followed the intimate relationship between American Green Berets and the Afghan officers they trained. Since its release in 2022, the film 'Retrograde' faced criticism for failing to protect the identities of its subjects, leading to the killing of one of the Afghan men by the Taliban.
Earlier this month, the Hollywood Reporter wrote that the man's family is suing the producers and distributors of the documentary, including Disney and National Geographic, faulting them for the man's death.
Azizi said he was also featured in the film and knew of the man who was killed by the Taliban.
Had he not found his way out, Azizi said, he might have faced a similar fate, or would have had to endure the harsh restrictions of Taliban rule. Fahima would not be allowed to work or move freely, and their six daughters wouldn't be allowed post-secondary education.
When he drops his daughters off at school and picks them up — both times on foot — he said he often thinks about all the what-if's.
His 14-year-old daughter Surya has dreams of becoming a doctor. His youngest daughter, Hfsah, 4, wants to be a hairstylist. Roya, 13, would love to be a teacher.
When the girls enrolled at Kilmer, the culture shock and language barrier made going to school dreadful. But now, Azizi said, he watches them run up to their teachers in the morning and looks on as they're immediately enveloped in a hug.
'I'm super proud and full of happiness,' he said.
While fleeing from place to place, Azizi said, the family often took pictures to capture the memories of being in each location. Even though circumstances were far from ideal, he said they were together, safe, healthy. It was worth capturing. They have pictures in Pakistan, in Doha, and now in Chicago, as they traverse the new neighborhood curiously.
A few weeks ago, Azizi said, as he was taking a selfie with his children, his daughter Sarah, 7, turned to him and asked, 'Baba, where are we going next?'
Azizi wiped his tears as he recounted that moment.
'Because we were leaving every city, going to different places, my little girl was thinking maybe America is not home as well,' Azizi said. 'I said, Sarah jaan, we are not going anywhere. I think it's here.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Mass. AG Andrea Joy Campbell joins 15 states in suing Trump administration over NSF cuts
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell joined 15 other states in suing the Trump administration to stop its attempts to cut National Science Foundation programs and funding. Earlier this month, the NSF announced it would be capping indirect costs at 15%, a move that mirrored funding cuts at the National Institute of Health and the Department of Energy, both of which are currently blocked by courts. The agency, which funds nonmedical scientific research, also started eliminating programs designed to increase the participation of women, minorities, and people with disabilities in STEM fields. "The NSF's mission is to promote the progress of science, advance the national health, prosperity and welfare, and secure the national defense," a spokesperson for the NSF said in a statement. "It is our priority to ensure all NSF awards aim to create opportunities for all Americans everywhere, without exclusion of any groups.' The attorneys general say that the Trump administration does not have the power to cap research funding and eliminate diversity programs, as funding for NSF, including the diversity programs, were mandated by Congress. 'Congress has adopted a clear, longstanding national policy to advance and promote 'full use of the human resources of the Nation' in STEM fields by encouraging participation of women, minorities, and persons with disabilities,' reads the lawsuit. 'Defendants do not have authority to categorically refuse to support research that comports with the Congressionally enacted policy of the United States.' The attorneys general seek a court order ruling NSF's new policies illegal and blocking them from implementation. Campbell said that the changes to NSF will hurt Massachusetts's ability to do research and could cause the US to lose its status as a global leader in STEM research. 'Massachusetts is home to world-renowned scientific research institutions that not only drive innovative solutions to our world's most pressing challenges, but also ensure our nation maintains its global, scientific leadership,' said Campbell in a press release. 'I will continue to hold the Trump Administration accountable for the unlawful attacks on STEM funding, which jeopardize Massachusetts and this entire country's public health, economy and national security.' Joining Campbell in the coalition are the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin. This lawsuit comes after 13 schools, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Brown University, sued the Trump administration in early May over the NSF funding cuts. The universities said that the 15% cap would cause them to lose millions of dollars and the amount of future research would 'decline precipitously.' 'From developing artificial intelligence (AI) technology to creating innovative solutions to environmental and energy challenges, NSF-funded research at American universities is vital to addressing the nation's biggest challenges and maintaining the country's competitive edge,' read Campbell's press release. 'NSF's new cap would mean essential research and infrastructure would be cut, leading to critical projects being abandoned, staff laid off, and research essential to national security, public health, and economic stability ending.' This article originally appeared on Telegram & Gazette: MA AG Andrea Campbell files NSF lawsuit against Trump administration

Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Steve Bannon Says Elon Musk and Scott Bessent Had ‘Physical Confrontation'
Elon Musk allegedly got into a heated discussion with a senior White House official that turned physical during his time as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), according to Steve Bannon. A former chief strategist during President Donald Trump's first term in office, Bannon told the Daily Mail that Musk's turbulent time in the White House took a dramatic turn when he allegedly "shoved" 62-year-old Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during a heated exchange. Musk said on X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday night that his scheduled time as a "special government employee" at DOGE was coming to an end. As head of DOGE, Musk has led the charge on cuts to federal spending. During that time, the Trump administration faced a lawsuit alleging that it had violated federal privacy laws by granting DOGE access to systems containing personal information on millions of Americans without their consent. Musk has faced fierce backlash over his drastic cuts to the government's budget, including canceling thousands of federal jobs, and the dismantling of entire agencies. Amid the uproar, Tesla cars and property have been targeted by protesters, causing the company's market share to decline. According to Bannon, Bessent confronted Musk over his sweeping but unfulfilled promises to deliver $1 trillion in budget cuts. "Scott Bessent called him out and said, 'You promised us a trillion dollars in cuts, and now you're at like $100 billion. Nobody can find any savings. What are you doing?'" Bannon recounted. "And that's when Elon got physical. It's a sore subject with him," Bannon said. "It wasn't an argument, it was a physical confrontation. Elon basically shoved him." According to Bannon, the clash occurred as Musk and Bessent moved from the Oval Office to outside Chief of Staff Susie Wiles' office, and then past the office of then-National Security Adviser Mike Waltz. "Trump 100 percent sided with Bessent after the clash," Bannon added. "I don't think Bessent has any bad blood, but he's got a job to do and he's going to do it." Revelations of the alleged Musk-Bessent clash emerged following a New York Times report alleging Musk was using "a cocktail of drugs on the campaign trail including ketamine, ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms." When questioned about the report an Oval Office press conference alongside Trump, Musk dismissed the allegations by criticizing the publication, stating, "Let's move on, next question." According to Bannon, Musk's status in Trump's orbit also diminished after the March leak that he was slated for top-secret military briefings on China, which Trump abruptly canceled. Bannon noted, "The president backed [Bessent] just like the president didn't allow the briefing on China," adding, "People in the administration and the White House realized he didn't have any idea what he's doing. They cauterized the damage." Bannon emphasized that this marked a turning point: "That's the inflection point, you see Elon all changed from that moment." Bannon also criticized Musk's handling of his DOGE promises, particularly after Trump's State of the Union address that referenced millions of allegedly fraudulent Social Security recipients over age 100. Musk's claims of fraud were debunked as "primarily due to an accounting error," with Bannon stating, "Not one penny was ever shown to have been sent to these people." "Is anyone trying to talk to Elon now? No," Bannon remarked, attributing the fallout from the White House's "Big Beautiful Bill" to Musk. He explained that Republicans in Congress had counted on Musk's promised spending cuts, but "he didn't deliver." Bannon said, "The political class on Capitol Hill willingly got behind a pied piper and wasted five months." "The people at fault here are Congress. They wanted to have a fairy godmother come in and wave a magic wand and say, it's all fraud, and get them off the hook. Particularly [House Speaker Mike] Johnson…they didn't invite Musk to Capitol Hill because they think he's politically radioactive, and they all lined up and didn't do the work on these bills…There's no cuts." Bannon's remarks come after Musk announced on Wednesday that he would be leaving his role at DOGE. Musk's time as a "special government employee" was only meant to last five months, so there had been much speculation that he would leave his role. But it is still unclear exactly why he is leaving. Eric Schiffer, a top tech investor and the chair of the private equity firm Patriarch Organization and chairman of Reputation Management Consultants, told Newsweek that Musk's decision to step down was likely a strategic move to recover his image, with polls acting as real-time barometers of his personal brand health. "The polls are the new SEC [Security and Exchange Commission] filings where prospectuses around CEO reputation is the real hidden ticker," he said. Pollster Nate Silver's tracker shows Musk's approval rating has declined since the start of the Trump administration, with 54 percent of Americans viewing him unfavorably and just 40 percent favorably, down from 41 percent favorable and 47 percent unfavorable. His net favorability has fallen from -5 to -14 points. Meanwhile, polls from HarrisX, Echelon Insights, and Global Strategy/Navigator Research show widespread dissatisfaction with Musk's role in government, particularly his handling of DOGE, with 55 percent disapproving of his involvement and 28 percent believing Trump gave him too much power. As Musk's reputation has dropped, so has that of his companies. The Axios Harris Poll 100 places Tesla and SpaceX near the bottom of the rankings, at 95th and 86th, respectively. On Thursday, Musk appeared in the White House for a press conference with Trump following news of his departure. During the press conference, Musk appeared to have a black eye. When asked about it, he joked that he wasn't "anywhere near France," a reference to an incident where French President Emmanuel Macron's wife Brigitte was seen pushing her husband before they walked off an airplane. Musk then revealed that his 5-year-old son, X, was responsible for the bruise. "I was just horsing around with little X and I said, 'Go ahead punch me in the face,' and he did," Musk explained. Trump, who said he hadn't noticed Musk's black eye, smiled at the story and added, "X could do it. If you knew X, he could do it." Musk further clarified, "I didn't really feel much at the time, and I guess it bruises up, but I was just horsing around with the kid." When asked about the Tesla chief's future in the White House, both Musk and Trump confirmed that he would always be on standby to provide guidance to the president. When questioned about the alleged confrontation between Musk and Bessent, White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, told the Daily Mail: "It's no secret President Trump has put together a team of people who are incredibly passionate about the issues impacting our country. "Disagreements are a normal part of any healthy policy process, and ultimately everyone knows they serve at the pleasure of President Trump." Following news of Musk's departure, Scott Bessent publicly praised the billionaire on X, writing: "@DOGEand@elonmusk have set some very important work in motion—which we are committed to continuing. The Trump administration is cutting costs and making the government more productive for the American people." Musk will likely pivot back to focusing on his businesses after leaving his role at DOGE. Tesla reportedly missed its first quarter projections by more than 70 percent. Related Articles Steve Bannon Suffers Legal SetbackSteve Bannon's Warning on Trump Budget Bill-'Don't See How the Math Works'Steve Bannon 'Very Upset' Over Trump's Big Beautiful BillMap Shows Where Manufacturing Is Growing 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Trump's Approval Rating Hits Second-Term Low With Most Accurate Pollster
President Donald Trump's approval rating has fallen to a new low, according to the nation's most accurate pollster. The latest AtlasIntel survey, conducted between May 21-27 among 3,469 adults, shows that Trump's approval rating has fallen to 45 percent, while 54 percent disapprove. That is the lowest rating of his second term so far. In previous AtlasIntel polls, his approval ranged between 46 and 50 percent, while his disapproval ranged between 49 and 52 percent. The poll had a margin of error of +/- 2 percentage points. AtlasIntel was ranked the most accurate polling company of the 2024 election by survey veteran Nate Silver and was previously named the most accurate pollster of the 2020 election by 538. Recent surveys had shown Trump's approval rating creeping back up after a period of decline following the introduction of his "Liberation Day" tariffs in April, which saw the stock market fall. But polls published in recent days show a more complicated picture of Trump's support. Trump's declining approval rating comes as the number of Americans who rate his overall performance as "Excellent" or "Good" has dropped from 46 percent in February to just 39 percent in May, according to AtlasIntel. Over the same period, those who rate his performance as "Poor" or "Very Poor" has climbed from 47 percent to 54 percent, indicating a clear erosion of support as the year has progressed. The decline in overall approval is mirrored in public assessments of Trump's handling of major national issues. On immigration—long one of Trump's hallmark concerns—53 percent of respondents now say his performance is poor, compared to just 47 percent who view it positively. Similarly, in the realm of the U.S. economy, once a strength for Trump, only 42 percent now give him positive marks, while 54 percent rate his performance as poor or terrible. This marks a notable decline from April, when economic approval briefly ticked up. Trump fares even worse on issues like health care and the national debt. Only 38 percent of Americans believe he is handling health care well, while 53 percent disapprove. On the national debt, a significant gap remains, with just 42 percent approving and 54 percent disapproving. His approach to safeguarding democracy has also drawn criticism, with a 6-point deficit between positive (47 percent) and negative (53 percent) ratings, though this reflects a slight improvement from April. Even in areas like China–U.S. competition, where Trump previously maintained relatively balanced support, sentiment has tilted more negatively. As of May, 53 percent disapprove of his handling of the issue, compared to 45 percent who approve. But The AtlasIntel survey breaks from other recent polls, which have shown Trump's approval ratings ticking up in recent weeks after a period of decline following the introduction of his "Liberation Day" tariffs in April. The policy move rattled markets, prompting a sharp sell-off before an eventual recovery and a pause on the tariffs by the administration. Since then, economic anxiety has died down. Consumer confidence saw a surprising increase in May. The Conference Board reported a rise to 98, much higher than both the expected 87.1 and April's 86 reading. It was the biggest one-month jump in more than a year. At the same time, Trump's general approval ratings are on the rebound. Newsweek's tracker currently shows that 47 percent approve of Trump's job performance, while 50 percent disapprove. Earlier this month, his approval rating stood at 44 percent, while his disapproval rate was firmly in the 50s. Others have shown the same trend. The latest Insider Advantage poll, conducted May 17-19 among 1,000 likely voters, gave Trump a net approval rating of +11 points, with 55 percent approving and 44 percent disapproving. That was up from a net approval rating of +2 points in early May, when 46 percent approved and 44 percent disapproved. And in the latest McLaughlin and Associates poll, conducted between May 21-26 among 1,000 voters, Trump's approval rating stood at 51 percent, up from 48 percent in an April poll, while hid disapproval stood at 44 percent, down from 52 percent previously. However, the overarching trend in the polls is one of stability, with some showing that his ratings have not substantially changed beyond a 1- or 2-point dip—within the margin of error—or have not changed at all. That includes the most recent Quantus Insights poll, conducted May 18-20, which showed Trump's approval rating at 48 percent, while 48 percent disapproved. That is unchanged from a poll conducted earlier in May, and an April poll also showed his approval rating stood at 48 percent, while his disapproval rating at 50 percent. Meanwhile, an American Research Group poll, conducted March 17-20 among 1,100 adults, put Trump's approval rating at 41 percent, down just 2 points from April. His disapproval grew from 53 percent to 55 percent. And the latest Civiqs poll, conducted May 17-20 among 1,018 registered voters, put Trump's approval up by 1 point, and his disapproval down by 1 point. The same trend occurred in the latest YouGov/Economist poll, conducted May 23-26 among 1,660 adults, which put his approval at 44 percent and disapproval at 52 percent. The latest YouGov/Yahoo poll, conducted May 22-27 among 1,560 adults, put Trump's approval down 1 point to 41 percent and his disapproval up 1 point to 54 percent. In Morning Consult's latest survey, conducted May 23-25 among 2,237 registered voters, Trump's approval rating was unchanged at 48 percent while his disapproval was up 1 point to 51 percent. And in the latest RMG Research/Napolitan News survey, conducted May 20-19 among 3,000 registered voters, Trump's approval was up 1 point to 49 percent, while his disapproval was unchanged at 50 percent. The RealClearPolitics tracker shows that on May 31, 2017, Trump's approval rating was 40 percent, while his disapproval rating was 54 percent. This gave him a net approval rating of -14 points, making Trump more popular now than at the same point in his first stint in the Oval Office. Trump's 47 percent approval rating is lower than that of former President Joe Biden at the same point in his presidency. On May 31, 2021, Biden stood at 54 percent, with a disapproval rating of 42 percent, according to RealClearPolitics. While Trump began his second term with his highest approval rating, according to Gallup's first poll of Trump's second term, conducted between January 21 and 27, he was still less popular than any president since 1953 at the start of a term and the only one to begin with a sub-50 percent approval rating. Gallup said Biden started his first term with a 57 percent approval rating. According to data compiled from Gallup by The American Presidency Project, Trump ranks far below other modern-day presidents after 100 days, dating to Dwight Eisenhower, who had an approval rating of 73 percent. Others with higher approval ratings at the 100-day mark include John F. Kennedy, 83 percent; Richard Nixon, 62 percent; Jimmy Carter, 63 percent; Ronald Reagan, 68 percent; George H.W. Bush, 56 percent; Bill Clinton, 55 percent; George W. Bush, 62 percent; and Barack Obama, 65 percent. Trump's approval rating could fluctuate in the coming weeks, depending on the outcome of key events, including critical negotiations in the Russia-Ukraine war, the evolving tariff situation and concerns about a recession. Related Articles Kamala Harris' 2028 Chances Drop in New PollDonald Trump's Approval Rating Surges Among MillennialsDemocrats' Chances of Winning Arizona Governor RaceHow Charlie Kirk Reshaped Arizona's Gubernatorial Race: Pollster 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.